It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anitram said:


No, there isn't.

There's a correlation.

They are two different things.

I do not have enough brain cells to understand the difference.

I just know laws making guns illegal are not going to deter a criminal from behaving like a criminal.

No different than speeding laws prevent speeding.
No different than drinking and driving laws do not prevent drinking and driving.

To me, it is the same thing. People who are law abiding, and handle themselves in a proper manner should not have thier rights restricted because of a fear that someone may or may not.

SO we have a difference of opinion. I am pretty sure I am not going to convince you otherwise, nor are you going to convince me.
 
Dreadsox said:


I do not have enough brain cells to understand the difference.

I just know laws making guns illegal are not going to deter a criminal from behaving like a criminal.

Well but it's not just semantics, because you made a claim that you don't buy the paranoia that gun ownership causes people to turn into killers.

A correlation means that there exists a statistical relationship between two things. So, there is a relationship between gun ownership and gun related crime. BUT that doesn't mean that YOU owning a gun is what CAUSED you to become a murderer. There is a huge difference between the two.

So yes, I would agree with you that there is no reason to think that just because a person owns a gun, they will use it illegally. But certainly there is a correlation between people owning guns and gun crimes (or accidents, if you will) occuring. That obviously has to be true since if I don't have a gun, I can't possibly use one (legally or illegally).

And as for this:

People who are law abiding, and handle themselves in a proper manner should not have thier rights restricted because of a fear that someone may or may not.

People who are law abiding constantly have their rights restricted by the state. You know this. To me, how is it any different here? There is no principle of constitutional law that states that your rights are to exist unrestricted. They are certainly liable to limitations, as is deemed necessary. So I'm not sure why your gun "rights" should be so sacrosanct that they cannot be infringed on, while every other constitutionally protected right is subject to justifiable limitations. That makes no sense to me at all.
 
Dreadsox said:

I just know laws making guns illegal are not going to deter a criminal from behaving like a criminal.

No different than speeding laws prevent speeding.
No different than drinking and driving laws do not prevent drinking and driving.

Then should we eliminate drunk driving laws since, according to you, they don't prevent drunk driving from happening?

Should we eliminate speed limits since people still speed?
 
I cannot believe what my mom told me today. Actually, knowing the person, I can, but still...my friend got pregnant and ended up marrying her boyfriend. He's pretty much a lazy ass dumbass who does NOTHING all day but spend money they don't have while she works and takes care of their kids. I won't get into that....So my mom told me he went out and illegally bought a handgun. He bought it from a friend, so he has no license to own or purchase such a gun. Then my mom said that he was letting his three year old daughter play with it and fire it!!!!!!!!! He has done some of the dumbest things you could think of, but good God this one takes the cake! If I knew more details, I'd seriously report him to the police.

Guns aren't inherently dangerous, yeah, right..... You see why we need tighter restrictions? Because dumbasses like this can just decide out of the blue to buy and carry a handgun that a three year old now has access to.
 
Other posters have suggested things along these lines already, but perhaps a "compromise" place to start could be increasing waiting periods; requiring extensive training regardless of gun type; limiting the number of guns per household; closing the loopholes which allow gun sales at gun shows, swap meets and online without background checks; banning sales of assault weapons; making registration of guns with the police mandatory; ending "shall issue" practices, where anyone permitted to buy a gun is automatically permitted to carry it loaded and concealed in public; and bringing state gun control enforcement procedures more into line with federal ones (for example, standardizing the definition and reporting of disqualifying mental health histories). Some states already have most of these things in place; many others have hardly any.

It's dated now unfortunately, but the most comprehensive study I've ever seen on gun ownership and homicide rates is Swiss criminologist Martin Killias' 1993 paper on gun ownership, homicide and suicide in 16 countries (several Western European countries plus the US, Canada, Australia and NZ). While he didn't find a consistent correlation between high gun ownership generally and high homicide rates, it's interesting that the US, which had (and still has) by far the highest homicide rate of all the countries surveyed--then at 75.9 per million, roughly two-and-a-half times that of Finland, the next highest at 29.6 per million--also had by far the highest household handgun ownership rate, at 28.5%; the only other country with a double-digit handgun ownership rate was Switzerland (12%) and all the rest were below 7%, whereas several countries besides the US had double-digit hunting/military-issue rifle ownership rates: Norway (29%), Canada (27.5%), Finland (21%), France (19%), Switzerland (17%) and Australia (17%)--though once again we were the highest at 38%. Since 68% of all US homicides are gun homicides and 75% of those are committed with handguns (per FBI data for 2005), I wonder if this might be relevant to the question of whether there's a different "orientation" towards guns here that makes us more likely to acquire and/or use them recklessly. Unfortunately I don't have data on which proportions of those rifles in other countries were hunting rifles versus which ones were military assault type, but *I think* it's the case that all those countries have in common relatively high numbers of hunters (which we have too, about 11% per GSS data) and/or compulsory military service (Finland, Norway, Switzerland--all with gun homicide rates less than a sixth of ours), which presumably has something to do with the relatively high rates of rifle ownership. (In Switzerland for example, only military officers, medical and postal personnel keep handguns; regular enlisted personnel keep assault rifles.) Of course it's speculative, but I wonder if the fact that we have such a high rate of handgun possession in the absence of conscription might not be symptomatic of a tendency towards an impulsive, looking-out-for-me-and-mine attitude towards gun possession that's more conducive to reckless use (and indifference to extensive training) compared to the relationship to guns which hunters, trained law enforcement or security personnel, and current or former soldiers tend to have.
 
Last edited:
yolland said:
Other posters have suggested things along these lines already, but perhaps a "compromise" place to start could be increasing waiting periods; requiring extensive training regardless of gun type; limiting the number of guns per household; closing the loopholes which allow gun sales at gun shows, swap meets and online without background checks; banning sales of assault weapons; making registration of guns with the police mandatory; ending "shall issue" practices, where anyone permitted to buy a gun is automatically permitted to carry it loaded and concealed in public; and bringing state gun control enforcement procedures more into line with federal ones (for example, standardizing the definition and reporting of disqualifying mental health histories). Some states already have most of these things in place; many others have hardly any.

Two things that are common in the hunting community I would add - mandatory "safety" classes and requirements for how and where the gun can be kept. There are requirements as to how people can keep certain exotic pets in their homes, so it's not a stretch to ask that people be required to keep their guns in locked cases that meet certain regulations (would have to be determined).
 
Liesje said:
Guns aren't inherently dangerous, yeah, right..... You see why we need tighter restrictions? Because dumbasses like this can just decide out of the blue to buy and carry a handgun that a three year old now has access to.
Would tighter background checks and requirements have prevented this dangerous fool from getting an illegal weapon?
 
I tend to think that the gun control debate is over in the U.S due to politics. The Democrats can't win when they support gun control so they dropped the issue. It didn't affect their base but attracted moderates who opposed gun control. Which is why there has been such a muted response in the wake of the Virginia Tech murders.

I also tend to think it is definitely a cultural aspect of U.S society which influences the huge disparity in the number of gun deaths as compared to other nations. What that aspect is, I don't know, there are many variables which have shaped America.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Would tighter background checks and requirements have prevented this dangerous fool from getting an illegal weapon?

Doubt it. That's why I don't think guns like this should even be on the market for people that don't use them in their profession (law enforcement officers).
 
martha said:
An isolated incident still isn't enough for me to surrender to a life of fear and paranoia and guns. I'll take my chances without weapons, thanks.

They are all isolated incidents until they happen to us or someone we know though. And no one's telling you (or me for that matter) that you can't take your chances sans weapons.

PS -- my friend isn't particularly fearful or paranoid either, despite you branding him as such.
 
Liesje said:


Doubt it. That's why I don't think guns like this should even be on the market for people that don't use them in their profession (law enforcement officers).
Pity that illegal activities are beyond the scope of regulation.

Technology like safety locks that require the registered owners fingerprints to activate seems to be something that could reduce unneccesary deaths.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Pity that illegal activities are beyond the scope of regulation.

Technology like safety locks that require the registered owners fingerprints to activate seems to be something that could reduce unneccesary deaths.

Yeah, whatever.

The point of the example was to show that it's not "safer" to have a handgun in the home. Along with the numerous stats and other evidence people have already posted, it seems AEON still believes that the likelihood of needing such a weapon to shoot someone who is trying to rape his wife is much higher than an accident happening because the gun was there and available to a child. We can't assume all parents are responsible enough to teach their children not to touch guns. Given that and the higher likelihood of an incident with a gun in a home as opposed to an intruder, I cannot believe it's safer to have a gun around children than to not have one.
 
My post was directed at AEON, yet you responded so defensively. What nerve did I hit?

indra said:
They are all isolated incidents until they happen to us or someone we know though. And no one's telling you (or me for that matter) that you can't take your chances sans weapons.
If I have never known anyone who this has happened to, how does your argument hold up? I wonder at the actual statistical chances I have of this happening to me or someone I know?




indra said:
PS -- my friend isn't particularly fearful or paranoid either, despite you branding him as such.

Yet he keeps a loaded gun within reach?
 
martha said:


You could anyway. He's got an illegally purchased gun and he's endangering the life of his daughter.


He sounds like an idiot.

Ahhhh some common ground.:wink:
 
martha said:


Then should we eliminate drunk driving laws since, according to you, they don't prevent drunk driving from happening?

Should we eliminate speed limits since people still speed?


Should we? I do not know? I know taking guns from law abiding citizens, will not prevent a thing. I know that drunk driving laws do not prevent law abiding citizens....

And I know my need for speed willnot be reduced by any laws.

But in my world, drunk drivers who actually kill someone would receive the death penalty. I am pretty sure that would not fly in here either.
 
anitram said:
People who are law abiding constantly have their rights restricted by the state.

This is a constitutional right guarenteed by the Bill of Rights. It is actually quite different. The Bill of Rights does not restrict, but it protects the citizens rights...

Now I agree there should be laws governing the ability of the citizenry to have guns for control purposes, however, I do not believe in the abolishment of the right all together.
 
Im still waiting on the US bringing in a constitutional right for mad scientists to bear doomsday weapons :crazy: :nerd:

The right to bear weapons for the overthrow of your own government is the epitome of freedom, some seem to think so
 
Last edited:
martha said:


Then should we eliminate drunk driving laws since, according to you, they don't prevent drunk driving from happening?

Should we eliminate speed limits since people still speed?

No...lets get rid of booze and cars. Then there would be no problem. See drunk driving laws and speed limits, do not regulate. That is the point of this thread, no? That gun control laws do not work, so we must prevent people from owning them. Therefore, the same thing should apply to cars, since prohibition failed once already, lets ban cars, get the horse and carriage and ride. Personally I like reverse cowgirl.
 
Dreadsox said:


This is a constitutional right guarenteed by the Bill of Rights. It is actually quite different. The Bill of Rights does not restrict, but it protects the citizens rights...

That argument doesn't hold up. Constitutional rights are subject to limitations and interpretations. Take a look at the 5th amendment and how it was used in cases arguing for the expropriation of property (some of the dumbest SCOTUS decisions ever, btw). And how broadly the court was willing to interpret the phrase "public use" in order to LIMIT your right to property and the ability of the state to step in and expropriate.

So I ask again: why is gun ownership such a sacrosanct right that it should not be limited when other constitutional rights which are equally as guaranteed can be judicially and lawfully limited?
 
Dreadsox said:
I fail to understand why having a gun makes you feel that they are "paranoid".

Why else have a loaded gun within reach at night, like this man did? The only reason is fear. And if you're that fearful, you are fucking paranoid.

If the gun isn't loaded, then why have it? It can't "save your life" if you can't shoot it at will.
 
Irvine511 said:
what is the purpose of a gun other than to kill?

From reading posts on some US conservative websites, I believe it has something to do with God and being a good Christian, but I'm still trying to work out what the link is.
 
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/22/newt-gingrich-blames-liberalism-on-va-tech-massacre/

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader context? After Columbine, you gave a speech where you blamed 35 — blamed the shootings on 35 years of liberalism.

You went — you said, "I want to say to the elite of this country, the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite — I accuse you in Littleton of being afraid to talk about the mess you've made and being afraid to take responsibility for the things you have done, and instead foisting on the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don't have the courage to look at the world you have created."

Do you stand by that prescription today?

GINGRICH: Yes, I think the fact is, if you look at the amount of violence we have in games that young people play at 7, 8, 10, 12, 15 years of age, if you look at the dehumanization, if you look at the fact that we refuse to say that we are, in fact, endowed by our creator, that our rights come from God, that if you kill somebody, you're committing an act of evil.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what does that have to do with liberalism?


GINGRICH: Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially, zone of not being willing to talk about any of these things. Let me carry another example. I strongly supported Imus being dismissed, but I also think the very thing he was dismissed for, which is the use of language which is stunningly degrading of women — the fact, for example, that one of the Halloween costumes this last year was being able to be either a prostitute or a pimp at 10, 11, 12 years of age, buying a costume, and we don't have any discussion about what's happened to our culture because while we're restricting political free speech under McCain-Feingold, we say it's impossible to restrict vulgar and vicious and anti-human speech.


And I would argue that that's a major component of what's happened to our culture in the last 40 years.
 
anitram said:


That argument doesn't hold up. Constitutional rights are subject to limitations and interpretations. Take a look at the 5th amendment and how it was used in cases arguing for the expropriation of property (some of the dumbest SCOTUS decisions ever, btw). And how broadly the court was willing to interpret the phrase "public use" in order to LIMIT your right to property and the ability of the state to step in and expropriate.

So I ask again: why is gun ownership such a sacrosanct right that it should not be limited when other constitutional rights which are equally as guaranteed can be judicially and lawfully limited?

Again, it is not different. Limitations within policy is allowed. removing the right completely, which is the basis of this thread is quite different from REGULATION.
 
Back
Top Bottom